I thought that was just a visual indication of the direction of the camera relative to the plane?

Might be useful to track that in After Effects. It's finer grained than the ° numbers, and could tell us something about the ground tracking mode which confuses people.

Click to expand...

That's how it seems to be behaving in this video, which would be redundant. In the Gimbal video, the dot is almost at the top when the azimuth reads zero, but it reaches the top when the azimuth is about 6 degrees.

Edit: On second thought, I guess it's at the top at 0 degrees. It's hard to read because it overlaps other symbology. So camera direction makes more sense.

Now can I track that line in 3ds Max and use it as an animation trajectory. I think.

I have zero aviation experience, so I'm confused and will sound pretty ignorant here, but why does the jet bank to the left in all these calculations when the artificial horizon banks to the right?

And does anyone know, for a 3D recreation would I want to use the TAS or CAS?

Click to expand...

For a 3D recreation, I think you want to use ground speed. That is TAS + Wind. We don't know the wind speed or direction, but we could figure it out based on the video @igoddard posted stabilized to the waves (conveniently at sea level!). Here is the data based on true airspeed (no wind taken into consideration).

For a 3D recreation, I think you want to use ground speed. That is TAS + Wind. We don't know the wind speed or direction, but we could figure it out based on the video @igoddard posted stabilized to the waves (conveniently at sea level!).

Click to expand...

Be aware there is often a huge variation in wind speed and direction with altitude. Escpecially compared to ground level winds.

Here's an actual, if somewhat contrived, example that shows you how big the range can be:

At sea level the speed are low and variable. In the spot indicated in the North Atlantic at ground level they are 10 km/h from 100° (East). At 500 hPa (around 18,000 feet) the wind is 124 km/h at 225°

So that's around 70 knots of error if you were to take the ground wind speed for the mid-altitudes wind speeds.

And we know this is almost certainly just a few minutes before the GIMAL video in which they say:

So there's a VAST potential for error in making assumptions about the wind.

Be aware there is often a huge variation in wind speed and direction with altitude. Escpecially compared to ground level winds.

Here's an actual, if somewhat contrived, example that shows you how big the range can be:

At sea level the speed are low and variable. In the spot indicated in the North Atlantic at ground level they are 10 km/h from 100° (East). At 500 hPa (around 18,000 feet) the wind is 124 km/h at 225°

So that's around 70 knots of error if you were to take the ground wind speed for the mid-altitudes wind speeds.

And we know this is almost certainly just a few minutes before the GIMAL video in which they say:

So there's a VAST potential for error in making assumptions about the wind.

Click to expand...

Agreed @Mick West . What I meant was that we use the waves as a fixed reference and use the az/el rates to compute ground speed. I was not suggesting that we assume ground wind speed is the same as altitude wind speed.

Oh, wow. Thanks. I was sort of wondering last night if that was possible.

As soon as I figure out the scripting syntax to get this data into 3ds Max, this would be preferable to using your "blue line trajectory" as a motion path and manually keying in altitude across all 1000+ frames.

What Gary Nolan seems to be saying is that if the object were at 12,500 feet altitude, both it and the surface of the sea could not be in focus at the same time, because the object would be too close to the camera and the sea would be too far. So, because they are both in focus, the object must be at a lower altitude.

Let's find out.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for this analysis. I brought it to Garry Nolan’s attention of the TTSA FB page and he has become convinced that you are right. Here is our exchange:

TOM MELLETT TO GARRY:
Garry, as it turns out, the issue of focal plane is better addressed by considering the Hyperfocal length of the lens, which tells the Depth of Field for the object along with its “Acceptable Circle of Confusion.”

Those considerations show that any object between the altitude of your value = 100 ft above sea level up to an altitude of half the jet’s altitude, i.e. 12,500 ft, will be in as good a focus as the focus of the ocean waves themselves. Therefore, your objection is moot, since the ocean waves themselves, an object at 100 ft, and an object at 12,500 ft will be in just about equal focus.

GARRY NOLAN TO TOM:
Ok-- I can accept that. I will run the numbers if I can get to someone at Raytheon who can confirm or not the depth of field issue-- I need to see the calculation. I want to know the capabilities of the Raytheon optics- though I expect push back for "operational capabilities" reasons. I understood all of Paracast's & Metabunk's math last week-- which is why I am trying to chase this information down. I was trying to get a sense of the focal depth (depth of field). So-- still waiting on the numbers. That said, given the discrepancy about what the video "numbers" provide-- "belief" in what is in the video now relies only on visual claims by the pilots and (unseen-- even by me) data from radar. The video information says the object "can" be mundane. The good thing about science is-- ego aside-- you can switch conclusions (or rule out things) as the data shows. I am convinced at this point (and have been for a week) that something in the video data is not comporting with other claims.

—— 3 Minutes later, he adds this comment —-

Ok, I don't need Raytheon's optics numbers. I see how the object can be in focus with the ocean. Will reserve a modicum of skepticism about it until I can get info back from a pilot I know. But thanks for the info!

Absent the fighter pilot's testimony, is there any evidence from the video alone that the "object" isn't a shadow on the ocean surface from a plane in the area. Would this explain why it's giving off no heat?

Here's the track of the camera angles dot. The red point indicate where it started to track smoothly.

Here's a graph of angle and radius (radius = distance from screen center)

A "saccade" is a rapid movement of the camera - when it moves so fast it blurs out the background. There are three, which are visible in the graph.

Of note here is that before the tracking actually starts (at "Acquire") the angle is still moving at a constant rate - this is because it is "ground stabilized", which means it attempts to point at a fixed region of the ground based on the angles of the camera and the altitude. This appears to result in the slight drift observed at the start, however the camera is still tracking relatively fast to compensate for the motion on the jet.

Update spreadsheet attached, dot tracking on second page.

EDIT: maybe the drift is because the system is using TAS and not ground speed?

3.3 Pointed Mode
The FLIR operates in Pointed mode whenever the FLIR is in Operate (OPR) status. During Pointed mode, the FLIR's Line-of-Sight (LOS) is controlled via several sub-modes. When the FLIR is in Stabilized pointing, the MC provides the pod with LOS direction cosines which cause the pod to point to a specific spot on the ground. The FLIR will then maintain this LOS as the aircraft maneuvers. During Snowplow pointing, the MC forces the FLIR's LOS to constant azimuth and elevation angles relative to the aircraft, but does not attempt to maintain LOS on a fixed position. When the FLIR is not in STBY status, the following pointed modes are available:

Slaved Pointing - With no designation (i.e. no ground target), the FLIR may be slaved to the HUD or Radar formats. With TDC priority to the HUD, the FLIR is slaved to the current HUD reticle LOS (e.g. CCIP, TDC cursor position, or AUTO mode reticle position). This allows the FLIR to be pointed prior to a HUD designation, or to display the CCIP impact point prior to release, even if the CCIP cross is below the HUD FOV. HUD slaving is not ground stabilized. If TDC priority is on the A/G Radar format, the FLIR is slaved to radar cursor look point by slewing with the in-video or EXP corral cursors visible. Radar slaving is always ground stabilized and always assumes a ground altitude of zero even if AGR is available. This is done to prevent undulations caused by rapidly changing terrain elevations which would in turn cause the look point elevation to rise and fall as the Radar cursor traverses the terrain.

Snowplow Pointing - FLIR LOS remains at a constant azimuth/elevation angle off the ownship flight path. The FLIR's snowplow pointing LOS is changed by assigning priority to the FLIR and using the TDC cursor to slew the FLIR LOS directly.

Stabilized Pointing (undesignated) - Snowplow pointing may be ground stabilized (without a designated target) at any time by pressing the cage/uncage switch CTRL+U while the FLIR LOS is below the horizon. This does not create a designation automatically, it simply stabilizes a non-designation point of interest on the ground. The stabilized point may be converted to a designation or moved/offset by using the DESIGNATE ENT and SLEW ▲/▼/►/◄ commands respectively.

Stabilized Pointing (designated) - When a target is designated by any means, all other pointing modes are disabled and the FLIR LOS is slaved to the ground target/OAP LOS. When the FLIR is slaved to a designation, the FLIR will remain ground stabilized at all times and cannot be unstabilized. Ground stabilized means that the FLIR is geographically "locked" at a given point on the ground, horizon up.

Content from external source

The "snowplow" pointing would result in a constant blur of the ocean surface, too fast to be useful at this FOV and speed.

Absent the fighter pilot's testimony, is there any evidence from the video alone that the "object" isn't a shadow on the ocean surface from a plane in the area. Would this explain why it's giving off no heat?

Click to expand...

It's not a shadow as: A) it's detected by radar. B) shadow would not effect emitted IR from water. C) it's moving independently of the plane.

Note in my graph above, the "dot angle" starts matching the displayed camera angle (35°) but then varies, at the end it's 67° vs. the displayed 58°. So it's not exactly the same thing. Perhaps the difference relates to the bank angle? At the start the jet is pretty level, and at the end it's banked 20 degrees. So maybe the displayed angle (58°) is relative to the plane of the jet, and the other is relative to the horizontal plane?

Does the horizon look warmer because it's actually warmer, or for the same reason it looks red during a total solar eclipse? The atmosphere scatters the blue light coming from the distant horizon, while the red and infrared light is more likely to reach you.

Click to expand...

I posted papers on Black body radiation. It is back on page 2 or 3. I can't remember post number.

Note in my graph above, the "dot angle" starts matching the displayed camera angle (35°) but then varies, at the end it's 67° vs. the displayed 58°. So it's not exactly the same thing. Perhaps the difference relates to the bank angle? At the start the jet is pretty level, and at the end it's banked 20 degrees. So maybe the displayed angle (58°) is relative to the plane of the jet, and the other is relative to the horizontal plane?

Click to expand...

Is it the LOS Cue?

LOS Cue: The small dashed box provides a quick idea of the approximate azimuth and elevation of the ATFLIR LOS with respect to your aircraft. The Pod LOS cue is displayed in a top down format where the center of the display represents the aircraft (with the nose pointed towards the top of the page). The Pod LOS box is positioned on the left or right side of the page based on the current Pod Azimuth, and the box is positioned vertically on the page based on pod Elevation.

LOS Cue: The small dashed box provides a quick idea of the approximate azimuth and elevation of the ATFLIR LOS with respect to your aircraft. The Pod LOS cue is displayed in a top down format where the center of the display represents the aircraft (with the nose pointed towards the top of the page). The Pod LOS box is positioned on the left or right side of the page based on the current Pod Azimuth, and the box is positioned vertically on the page based on pod Elevation.

It sure does not behave that way in the Gimbal video. The dot moves up even though the elevation angle doesn't change.

Click to expand...

I have the feeling that the angles in the ATFLIR display are defined with respect to a reference plane that stays horizontal independent of the roll angle of the jet, while the LOS Cue does take the roll angle into account, i.e., it is a LOS Cue as seen from the cockpit.

Reasons for this feeling: The height of the object stays constant if you assume a reference plane that stays horizontal independent of the roll angle of the jet, and the horizontal angle in the display does not seem to shift much when the plane starts banking.
The LOS Cue, however, does seem to respond to a banking manoeuvre.

Reasons for this feeling: The height of the object stays constant if you assume a reference plane that stays horizontal independent of the roll angle of the jet, and the horizontal angle in the display does not seem to shift much when the plane starts banking.

Click to expand...

I concur. I used true horizontal in my calculations after observing the same.

Thank you so much for this analysis. I brought it to Garry Nolan’s attention of the TTSA FB page and he has become convinced that you are right. Here is our exchange:

TOM MELLETT TO GARRY:
Garry, as it turns out, the issue of focal plane is better addressed by considering the Hyperfocal length of the lens, which tells the Depth of Field for the object along with its “Acceptable Circle of Confusion.”

Those considerations show that any object between the altitude of your value = 100 ft above sea level up to an altitude of half the jet’s altitude, i.e. 12,500 ft, will be in as good a focus as the focus of the ocean waves themselves. Therefore, your objection is moot, since the ocean waves themselves, an object at 100 ft, and an object at 12,500 ft will be in just about equal focus.

GARRY NOLAN TO TOM:
Ok-- I can accept that. I will run the numbers if I can get to someone at Raytheon who can confirm or not the depth of field issue-- I need to see the calculation. I want to know the capabilities of the Raytheon optics- though I expect push back for "operational capabilities" reasons. I understood all of Paracast's & Metabunk's math last week-- which is why I am trying to chase this information down. I was trying to get a sense of the focal depth (depth of field). So-- still waiting on the numbers. That said, given the discrepancy about what the video "numbers" provide-- "belief" in what is in the video now relies only on visual claims by the pilots and (unseen-- even by me) data from radar. The video information says the object "can" be mundane. The good thing about science is-- ego aside-- you can switch conclusions (or rule out things) as the data shows. I am convinced at this point (and have been for a week) that something in the video data is not comporting with other claims.

—— 3 Minutes later, he adds this comment —-

Ok, I don't need Raytheon's optics numbers. I see how the object can be in focus with the ocean. Will reserve a modicum of skepticism about it until I can get info back from a pilot I know. But thanks for the info!

Content from external source

Click to expand...

To be honest the focus thing is a red herring, the height of the plane the angle of the ATFLIR and the radar range are all incompatible with the object being just above the surface. This is simple trigonometry and requires no deep understanding of optics.

To be honest the focus thing is a red herring, the height of the plane the angle of the ATFLIR and the radar range are all incompatible with the object being just above the surface. This is simple trigonometry and requires no deep understanding of optics.

Click to expand...

Can you explain your calculations a little further? What's your estimate of the height of the object?

So assuming those numbers are more or less accurate then it's an object that's around 13,000 feet ((25000 feet) - (1.95 nautical miles)) in altitude, viewed from a jet at 25,000 feet. Basically it's half way between the jet and the ocean surface.

To be honest the focus thing is a red herring, the height of the plane the angle of the ATFLIR and the radar range are all incompatible with the object being just above the surface. This is simple trigonometry and requires no deep understanding of optics.

Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree with you, but there are definite reasons beyond the scope of this thread why Garry Nolan was defending the calculations of Bruce Maccabee which mandate the object had to be flying at a speed of 360 knots only 100 ft. above the surface of the ocean. (It involves tracing the “provenance” of TTSA which goes through AATIP directly back to Bob Bigelow and his NIDS project for which Bruce Maccabee wrote an article in 1996 about the “impossible” high-speed maneuvers of UFOs.)https://web.archive.org/web/20070210181457/http://www.nidsci.org/articles/maccabee/acceleration.html

ACCELERATION

Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Visual and photographic sightings of UFOs carrying out "impossible" high speed maneuvers are presented for study. For the first time we are able to quantify the amazing acceleration of these craft.

The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water.

Content from external source

Garry’s last hope to salvage the TTSA narrative about this object’s behavior was to seize on and cling to the “focal plane” issue, but to Garry’s credit, he is enough of a good scientist to be convinced by the “depth of field” consideration and realize now that the object could be at 13,000 feet and still be in acceptable focus.

I have yet to hear back from him, but I’m sure he is at least contemplating the necessity of advising TTSA that they once again must make a public admission of over-hyping their claims from strong confirmation bias that this object is a bona fide UFO under conscious control of a superior technological intelligence and not a supremely mundane object like a migratory bird or a weather balloon.

How best to sum up TTSA and their public image? I’ve grown fond of saying: Tom DeLonge is the Donald Trump of Disclosure.

Yes, I totally agree with you, but there are definite reasons beyond the scope of this thread why Garry Nolan was defending the calculations of Bruce Maccabee which mandate the object had to be flying at a speed of 360 knots only 100 ft. above the surface of the ocean.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom, can you provide a link to Bruce's calculations? Or copy-paste them here?

Here's a striking illustration of the variation in wind speed and direction from the surface up

All four at at the same position, just of the coast of San Francisco, California.

At the surface, it's 15 km/h from the east (90°)
at 700mb (about 10,000 feet) it's 15 km/h from the south (185°)
At 500mb (about 18,000 feet) it's 70 km/h from the west (260°)
at 250mb (34,000 feet) it's 165 km/h from the west (270°).

Hi Tom, can you provide a link to Bruce's calculations? Or copy-paste them here?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

OK, I finally tracked down the Maccabee calculations, actually just a revision of his original calculations which he sent to someone on the TTSA FB group who then relayed that text to me.

PAUL TO TOM MELLETT:
I never said he [Maccabee] had access to the radar data. He did his calculations from the video. But he is an expert in this field of image/video analysis so his input has merit and I noted his analysis agreed with what Nolan said he was told. This is his actual statement from a few days ago (works out to about 380 mph):

REVISION OF SPEED CALCULATION MARCH 12. [by Bruce Maccabee]

I have re-evaluated the speed of crossing the FOV (1.5 deg is assumed) during the short time that the image of the water was nearly stationary and pointing at a fixed area about 10 nm from the plane.

In my TENTATIVE CALCULATION I estimated "4 to 3 seconds" of crossing time.

However, when I subsequently counted the number of video frames I found that it took about 55 frames at 30 frames/ sec which corresponds to 55/30 = 1.8 sec.

The exact distance to the object at that time is not known because the system had not yet locked on.

However when it did lock on a short time later the range was about 4.1 nm and decreasing.

I therefore "guesstimate" the range at 4.5 nm.

The width of the FOV is 1.5 deg x 0.0174 rad/deg = 0.026 rad which corresponds to 0.117 nm at 4.5 nm distance,

The object crossed the FOV area at an angle of about 45 deg so the distance traveled as it crossed the FOV was about (0.026 rad) x 1.41(to account for the 45 degree crossing) x 4.5 nm = 0.165 nm.

It traveled this distance in about 1.8 sec for a speed of 0.092 nm/sec which is about 330 kt....about twice the larger speed previously calculated but certainly not an earth shaking speed.

A new article out by Billy Cox at De Void on the underwhelming rollouts of TTSA. But he really needs to be informed by the Metabunk crew here that TTSA is doing more than dragging their feet; they are making gross and embarrassing errors in analyzing the behavior of the object. He links to a Popular Mechanics article about the 3rd video but they make no calculations of the object speed or altitude!

It’s been more than a week since The Washington Post ran that op-ed piece by Christopher Mellon, in which the former deputy secretary of defense for intelligence under two administrations made a pitch for renewed and fully funded government research into The Great Taboo. Mellon’s appeal was air-tight on logic, but since nothing succeeds like visuals, the biggest buzz wasn’t about what he said, but the accompanying video showing yet another UFO eluding a Navy warplane.

In a near-rerun of last December, when TTSA – the private for-profit corporation to which Mellon is an advisor – dropped the first two UFO chase sequences recorded by F-18s into the public domain, corporate media pounced all over this one, too. And why not? Exuberant audio exchanges between pilots who appear to be witnessing something completely extraordinary are a welcome respite from the unremitting rhythms of disappointment, mediocrity, hopelessness and despair that dominate news cycles today. Even traditional debunking platforms like Popular Mechanics are approaching the latest vid with a less jaundiced eye. For once, the geek-zine isn’t shrugging this one off with its best worst guess.

OK, I finally tracked down the Maccabee calculations, actually just a revision of his original calculations which he sent to someone on the TTSA FB group who then relayed that text to me.

PAUL TO TOM MELLETT:
I never said he [Maccabee] had access to the radar data. He did his calculations from the video. But he is an expert in this field of image/video analysis so his input has merit and I noted his analysis agreed with what Nolan said he was told. This is his actual statement from a few days ago (works out to about 380 mph):

REVISION OF SPEED CALCULATION MARCH 12. [by Bruce Maccabee]

I have re-evaluated the speed of crossing the FOV (1.5 deg is assumed) during the short time that the image of the water was nearly stationary and pointing at a fixed area about 10 nm from the plane.

In my TENTATIVE CALCULATION I estimated "4 to 3 seconds" of crossing time.

However, when I subsequently counted the number of video frames I found that it took about 55 frames at 30 frames/ sec which corresponds to 55/30 = 1.8 sec.

The exact distance to the object at that time is not known because the system had not yet locked on.

However when it did lock on a short time later the range was about 4.1 nm and decreasing.

I therefore "guesstimate" the range at 4.5 nm.

The width of the FOV is 1.5 deg x 0.0174 rad/deg = 0.026 rad which corresponds to 0.117 nm at 4.5 nm distance,

The object crossed the FOV area at an angle of about 45 deg so the distance traveled as it crossed the FOV was about (0.026 rad) x 1.41(to account for the 45 degree crossing) x 4.5 nm = 0.165 nm.

It traveled this distance in about 1.8 sec for a speed of 0.092 nm/sec which is about 330 kt....about twice the larger speed previously calculated but certainly not an earth shaking speed.

Content from external source

Click to expand...

Thanks! I think a big chunk of the 330 knots may be due to the speed of the jet combined with the parallax effect. The ATFLIR is 'locked' to a piece of the ocean while the jet speed is 250 knots. An object halfway the jet and the ocean would cross the small FOV pretty fast, even if it was stationary.

This is why getting the trigonometry height calculation out there as a key part of debate, any speed calcs based on a low height are incorrect as the height cannot be low and the math to work out the height is based entirely on information in the FLIR overlay (no assumptions reasonable or otherwise) and simple trigonometry which is taught in high school. making an assumption that the object is just above the ocean leads to flaws.

That statement is interesting as it reveals what they believe the FOV to be.

This is why getting the trigonometry height calculation out there as a key part of debate, any speed calcs based on a low height are incorrect as the height cannot be low and the math to work out the height is based entirely on information in the FLIR overlay (no assumptions reasonable or otherwise) and simple trigonometry which is taught in high school. making an assumption that the object is just above the ocean leads to flaws.

That statement is interesting as it reveals what they believe the FOV to be.

Click to expand...

Thank you, @Kaen and @jarlrmai . Would you say then that BM’s speed calculations are correct, given his assumption that the object was so close to the ocean surface that parallax was not taken into account?

Then what would BM have calculated as the speed of the object IF he had used the correct parallax angle from an object at 13,000 ft altitude? As opposed to 100 ft. Altitude?

A better way of saying it, is what Parallax Angle did BM use and what Parallax angle did MB (Metabunk) use?

I’d like to be able to present the results to Garry Nolan and the TTSA FB group in as simple and concise a way as possible, and this seems to be another analysis that would use simple trig.

Could someone put together a graphic that would utilize “Parallax Scrolling” for both the BM and MB calculations to show what’s going on and thus vividly illustrate the discrepancy?

And, assuming BM’s calculations are correct, apart from the parallax issue, I’d like to see this result at the end

Therefore BM’s calculations of the object speed given his parallax angle is 380 kn
while MB’s calculation with their parallax angle gives _____ kn.

Thank you, @Kaen and @jarlrmai . Would you say then that BM’s speed calculations are correct, given his assumption that the object was so close to the ocean surface that parallax was not taken into account?

Then what would BM have calculated as the speed of the object IF he had used the correct parallax angle from an object at 13,000 ft altitude? As opposed to 100 ft. Altitude?

A better way of saying it, is what Parallax Angle did BM use and what Parallax angle did MB (Metabunk) use?

I’d like to be able to present the results to Garry Nolan and the TTSA FB group in as simple and concise a way as possible, and this seems to be another analysis that would use simple trig.

Could someone put together a graphic that would utilize “Parallax Scrolling” for both the BM and MB calculations to show what’s going on and thus vividly illustrate the discrepancy?

And, assuming BM’s calculations are correct, apart from the parallax issue, I’d like to see this result at the end

Therefore BM’s calculations of the object speed given his parallax angle is 380 kn
while MB’s calculation with their parallax angle gives _____ kn.

Click to expand...

No trigonometry needed, just ratios.

Bruce did use the right object range, but forgot to compensate for the virtual speed that the object has due to the parallax effect.

The picture shows how the parallax effect causes a stationary object at altitude h1 to have a virtual speed as sea level of h1 x Vjet/h2. Here, Vjet is the jet’s true (ground) speed and the jet is at altitude h1+h2.

Bruce did not use this speed, but calculated an equivalent speed at the object’s altitude h1. The parallax effect will result in a (virtual, due to parallax) calculated speed for a stationary object of: Vjet x h1/(h1+h2).

The CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) of the jet is 250 knots. This results in a TAS (True Air Speed) of 370 knots at 25.000 feet. The jet’s ground speed Vjet equals TAS + wind speed. Wind speed is the great unknown here (see posts above), so we have to make an assumption.

If we assume 70 knots wind speed, so Vjet = 440 knots, a stationary object at 13.000 feet would already have a virtual calculated speed of 440 x 13.000/25.000 = 230 knots. So it already gets 230 knots for free, without having to do anything. This only leaves 100 knots for the speed of the object itself, which is in the same ballpark as the calculations done for the video part where the object was locked by the ATFLIR.

It's nice to have the range to the "UFO" for once. In the Nimitz "tic tac" encounter, I speculated that the tic tac was a weather balloon, and the pilot, David Fravor, overestimated the range to it and thought it was "mirroring" him by staying on the opposite side of a circle that his jet was tracing, when the tic tac was actually staying in the center of the circle.

It's nice to have the range to the "UFO" for once. In the Nimitz "tic tac" encounter, I speculated that the tic tac was a weather balloon, and the pilot, David Fravor, overestimated the range to it and thought it was "mirroring" him by staying on the opposite side of a circle that his jet was tracing, when the tic tac was actually staying in the center of the circle.

Click to expand...

I don't think a balloon fits the description in the event log:

WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN RADIUS. PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE.
110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE.

Content from external source

Fravor's narrative of these events:

"So as I come across, I’m a little above him, he’s at the three o’clock position, and I go ‘the only way I’m going to get this is to do an aggressive out-of-plane maneuver', so I dump the nose and I go from the nine o’clock through the vertical down to go across to the three o’clock.
So as I get down to about – and I’m probably about 60 degrees nose low pulling through the bottom – it starts to accelerate, it has an incredible rate of acceleration and it takes off."

Content from external source

A balloon would not be able to outrun an F18. Unfortunately the FLIR1 video does not show any unusual manoeuvre or speed, though it does seem to show an object resembling a capsule.

Here's a theory: occasionally, over the course of a decade, a pilot will lose situational awareness, but not realize it, and then later write down what he recalled observing. Occasionally this will coincide with ghost returns on a ship's radar, or some other event.

The absolute rejection of this entirely plausible theory is the basis for some interpretations of these videos. This rejection is based on a misplaced deification of the observations skills of people who are still actually human.

But in the current (GO FAST) video, and the GIMBAL video, we don't even have that. We just have a video of some pilots having fun locking onto random stuff they can't immediately identify.

In the NIMIZ (tic-tac) video we don't have that either. Fravor's recollection is not of the events shown in the video, and really should be treated as separate.

Just to let you know I've been working on recreating the GO FAST video in Blender, It's amazing how similar to the video a 2 meter object at the ranges in the video looks in Blender through a square 1.5 degree FOV camera against a simulated ocean textured background. Also a brief animation of the camera moving in the forward axis only while tracking a stationary object exhibits a noticeable parallax effect.

When assuming how the ATFLIR camera tracks is there anything I should be taking in to account? Can I discount the roll of the aircraft as the camera compensates and translate the camera mount in the x,y,z only?

Hello @Kaen ! Thank you so much for that diagram above. It is really helpful to explain parallax effect to those unfamiliar with it.

However, before I ask you questions I have about the assumptions made in the diagram, I would like to drop back and punt because I just discovered on FB Bruce Maccabee’s Original calculations made on March 9. (You operated only from his revised calculations dated March 12.) Here is the text of his original calculations. Does it give you any more insight into his process? It looks like his original calculations were more in line with yours, but then I suppose he revised his calculations because it wasn’t fitting the original narrative of TTSA that the object must be moving fast 380 Kn at a low altitude of 100 ft)

It crosses the FOV at about a 45 deg angle so the actual approximate distance across the FOV is 0.1 nm/0.707 = 0.14 nm;

it crosses in 4 to 3 sec implying a differential speed of the plane and object of 0.14 nm/ ( 4 to 3 sec)/(one hour/ 3600) = 126 to 170 kt)…

Since the plane is going at about 250 kt the object was going at the speed approx. (250 – 150) = 100 kt in the same direction as the airplane but clearly slower)calculation assumes land speed is approx. same as air speed) )))